Catholic Culture News
Catholic Culture News
Catholic World News

Faithful should stand for Communion, says Scottish archbishop

August 31, 2011

A Scottish archbishop has announced that the faithful should receive Communion standing, arguing that “kneeling at the altar rails (where they continue to exist) is not the practice envisaged by the instructions in the Missal.”

In a letter to his priests, Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow said that the General Instruction to the Roman Missal calls for the faithful to file up and receive Communion standing. The text actually says that “the faithful communicate either kneeling or standing, as determined by the Conference of Bishops.”

Archbishop Conti did not instruct his priests on how to approach Catholics who kneel for Communion despite his directive. In 2002, the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship said that Catholics who wish to kneel when receiving Communion should not be required to stand. Refusing to administer Communion to those who insist on kneeling would be “a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful,” the Vatican said.

 


For all current news, visit our News home page.


 
Further information:
Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

  • Posted by: TheJournalist64 - Aug. 31, 2011 8:15 PM ET USA

    I hope somebody slaps this bishop somewhere. He obviously doesn't "get it." When I distribute communion, frankly, the only folks who are clearly reverent and centered on the Eucharist are the ones who receive kneeling and on the tongue. Ninety-nine to one.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 31, 2011 6:33 PM ET USA

    Is this episcopal arrogance, senility, or an inability to read? His Canon 401 resignation should be promptly accepted. An American bishop, Paul LoVerde in Arlington, VA, tried this some years ago in the name of a pointless "uniformity." It was corrected.